Difference between DMA 100 and 133 hard drives

[charleshx]

What is the difference between an Ultra DMA 100 and 133 hard drive? Speed? If so, how much?
Can I replace a DMA 100 hard drive with a DMA 133 or do I have to replace the IDE controller card too? If so, how cost effective is the change? (I am working with large video files where "rendering" and especially "authoring" times are murder.)
Pentium 4, 1.7 Ghz 256 MB mem, 80 GB and 30 GB drives (wish to replace the 30 GB with a 150 or more GB but preferably faster drive),, Windows XP Home.
Any other idea how to speed up the video editing and burning? As I understand, replacing the processor with a faster one gives only minimal improvement, the bottleneck is in the hard drive.
Thank you for your input.

 

[dumdum]

Rendering is a CPU intensive process. The faster the CPU, the faster the rendering. (get some more ram too!)

The difference between 100 and 133 is theoretical throughput. Chances are if your Mobo or Controller card supports DMA 100 it will support 133 but check with the Mobo or Cards manufacturer.

We are always looking for new members at our computer forums:

http://forums.jlrforum.net

 

[cdogg]

Rendering and authoring is mostly CPU dependent, so that should be the primary focus point when considering an upgrade. However, having elite hard drive performance can help make a significant difference.

First of all, ATA 133 drives are backward compatible to run at ATA 33/66/100. So if your motherboard controller doesn't support the newer 133, then it will just run at 100.

Secondly, there is no real benefit to having ATA 133 over ATA 100, unless you form a RAID array with your hard drives. Even then, any performance gain with the faster interface is minimal. Why, you ask? Simple. The fastest IDE hard drives out there rarely average more than 45MB/s transfer speeds when running alone, and sometimes as high as 70MB/s when in RAID configurations. ATA 100 which can accomodate up to 100MB/s transfer rates is still more than enough to handle IDE demands.

Remember, only expect to increase your performance by 5-10% with a faster hard drive configuration for video editing/authoring. Therefore if you're serious about having the ultimate hard drive configuration for performance, consider setting up a RAID array with the SCSI interface and 15,000RPM drives. The next best cheaper solution would be IDE 7200RPM or 10,000RPM drives in a RAID array. Just make sure the drives have 8MB cache.


~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[paparazi]

ATA133 isn't necessarily newer and drives supporting it are definately arn't faster either.
Up untill recently the fastest 7,200rpm drive on the market (Wesrtern Digitals special edition with 8meg cache) is/was only ATA 100.
The fastest standard drive without going to 10,000/15,000 spin speeds and limitting capacity, is the Hitachi 7K250, this drive I believe is available upto 250gig.
I always compare this ATA100 versa's ATA133 argument to a car and it's speedometer, just because it says "200mph" doesn't mean it can actually do that speed, just like ATA133, and the now even faster ATA150, they may have a theoretical max data transfer at these speeds but actually peak at far less, hence the reason for there being no differance in performance between the differant types.
Martin

Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.

 

[SkipCox]

My ATA 133 hdd runs just fine on an ATA 100 motherboard at about 45Mb/sec. It gets better, but not much better.

Skip

http://home.comcast.net/~scox9/index.html

 

[cdogg]

To go along with paparazi's speedometer argument, you could say the hard drive is like the engine in the car. Although the speedometer reads up to 200mph, the engine may only max out at 120mph. Asking for ATA133 or SATA150 is like asking for a speedometer that lists a higher speed, instead of asking first for a faster engine.

 

[ceh4702]

I do not think it matters one bit in a one hard drive system where you have one hard drive on the primary master alone by itself.

Trasfer speed is just one link in the chain. I think the transfer speed of ATA100 can more than keep up with one hard drive. The weak link is reading and writing data to and from the hard drive platters.

If you were running Raid with 4 Disks then the transfer rate would be more important.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[charleshx]

Thanks fellows;
It seems I will just stick with my DMA 100, but might replace my 30 GB drive with a larger one. So I can simply swap the drives. Am I right?

 

[GOLDENCHILD]

Before you change your drive please check your BIOS' capabilities . Your board might support drives larger than 137GB then again it might not...
Typically you'll need a BIOS update even if your Motherboard have the capability (48 Bit LBA) .
If you want to go with a new drive with a capacity higer than 137 GB then please check the links below and follow instructions CAREFULLY !!!

With respect to speed I'll have to go with the user that recommended IDE RAID (stripe) and 8MB drive cache.

Personally I would recommend you a Maxtor ATA133 , 7200RPM drive with 8MB cache no matter if you want a single drive or RAID.
If you go for a 7200RPM drive I STRONGLY recommend drive cooling NO MATTER what others might say .
Though the question of exactly how hot your drives get depend on a number of factors then one thing is sure and that is that a lot of users looses their drives because they gets too hot. (electronics and bearings)
I personally uses Chieftec casings that allow for a vent. to be mounted (please note that not all colors of every model has got a doorvent.

http://www.chieftec.com/products/workstation/workstation-tmp.htm

Regards and good luck


For microsoft 48Bit LBA adressing in Win XP Please read the foloowing page CAREFULLY :

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

For 160 GB registry enabling in Windows 2000 (48 Bit LBA adressing) please read this page CAREFULLY :

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305098

For Maxtor Bigdrive enabler please read this page CAREFULLY :

http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/big_drive_enabler.htm

For Maxtor discussion of problem please see this page :

http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...p?p_lva=1392&p_faqid=960&p_created=1016214655

 

[charleshx]

Goldenchild, your info was greatly appreciated.
I was actually eyeing the Maxtor 160 GB 7200 drive with 8 MB cache you recommend at Costco for $ 129 and the box claims that it includes a PCI card for the drive. Apparently it is to overcome the 137 GB limitation. This also answers my previous question: I must replace the existing PCI card (or integrated MOBO?).
It seems that RAID configuration is recommended to increase speed. I am not familiar with Raid, so could you enlighten me how to install it if I get that Maxtor drive and its PCI card.
I am aware that video procesing is very CPU dependent, but from the literature I assume that upgrading to faster CPUs is not very cost effective (mine is 1.7 Ghz P4) What I learned that speed increase is not proportional to CPU speed, Is that true?
Thanks again.

 

[SYAR2003]

Well charles if you want to set up raid
you have to buy more drives.

RAID 0 (striped)

Simple explanation
[tt]
---------------------> HDD 1
C: partition
---------------------> HDD 2
[/tt]

So you will see that accessing the C: and it's files
use two ide channels for access witch in theory doubles
the speed . The C: partition in the example is across two disks.

syar

 

[GOLDENCHILD]

I can not tell you if the drive will run on your Motherboard controller with a capacity with more than 137 GB since I do not know the make and model (and even if you post it I can't guarantee I'll be back to read it).
Your motherboard controller MIGHT be able to use the full capacity of drives larger than 137 GB , I advise you to do a check on your motherboard specifications...

With respect to raid you do (as SYAR2003 imply) get best speed if you on a 2 drive raid configuration use only one drive per channel (one on each cable) and then setup the raid array as striped.

With your processor and a modern drive you might be able to record video on just one drive with a good result.
But use atlest one DEDICATED drive for video recording. This means put your O.S. on ONE PHYSICAL drive and record your video to ANOTHER PHYSICAL drive - meaning two different partitions on 1 drive won't do!
If you wan't to use a raid then use the raid drives as target for recording. and use another drive for O.S. and boot.

With a P4-1700MHZ you should have sufficent power to record video - depending on if you compress the video while you record or if not , and if you compress then depending on how hard you compress.

I've tried several ways of recording video and only one way satisfied ME. After spending money on more solutions I ended up buying a Pinnacle Studio Deluxe that records from an external source . If you want to record from TV then get Pinnacle Studio Deluxe 8 (

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/ProductPage_n.asp?Product_ID=520&Langue_ID=2

)plus an external source to record from , an old S-VHS video machine that got both S-VHS and audio out is a perfect solution. That way you can use the video machine as a tuner and get a good resolution of picture as source to record from . The Pinnacle Studio Deluxe 8 got both analog and digital video in and out ! and audio in and out. Only set back is that it'll set you back maybe AROUND $400 (I do not know prices where you are) . The Pinnacle Studio Deluxe 8 allows you to record video at AROUND 14GB per hour (FOURTEEN GB!!!!)and compress later to MPEG. TIP: with respect to connecting the Pinnacle Studio Deluxe 8 breakout box to videomachine I had to to connect both the videomachines video outputs to the breakout box to get color in any case , this means that I connected bot the S-VHS cable and the CVBS (through scart) , anyway should you have any problems I'm sure Pinnacle will help you - I didn't bother to contact them about this - perhaps I just used a bad cable (?)
I myself use a 2 drive raid configuration as target for videorecording.

If you wish a cheaper solution for TV-recording of lesser quality then go Pinnacle PCTV Pro (

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/ProductPage_n.asp?Product_ID=103&Langue_ID=2

) , good product as well (however misses MPEG cut tool) . I can guarantee that "Pinnacle Sys" delivers products that is better than average - plus at a reasonable price too.

Regards

 

[cdogg]

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about RAID at the moment. You can always upgrade to it later. Just be aware that an effective RAID setup involves two or more drives with the same capacity and specs.

Yes, performance increase is not directly propertional to CPU speed increase. Popping in a CPU that's rated 1.5 times faster isn't necessarily going to give you 1.5 times the performance. Other factors like the hard drive, video card, RAM, and FSB also play a big role in overall performance ratings. It really depends on the process you are trying to enhance. Video editing may benefit more from a CPU and RAM upgrade, but gaming might benefit more from a hard drive and video card upgrade. It just depends...

The 137GB limit shouldn't be a factor for you. You can always buy an add-in PCI IDE controller card for under $35, and some drives like the Maxtor you were looking at comes with one. With a PCI IDE controller, you can still use the onboard IDE controllers for other devices.

~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle

 

[charleshx]

Thank you fellows.
Goldenchild: I do use now two HDDs, the first of 80 GB has ALL my programs, OS etc and the second: 30 GB is dedicated to the videoclips only. This is the one I would like to replace with a 160 GB new drive ( AVI files take a tremendous space - over a GB/min.)
I found the best quality from VHS tapes to final VCD or DVD is to capture from the VHS in AVI, edit in AVI, then convert to MPEG. This takes at least double space so I am planning to replace the 30 GB drive.
I am not familiar with RAID so your and SYAR2003's help is appreciated. What does "striped" mean in raid? If I replace the 30 GB drive with the Maxtor 160 GB (dedicated to videoclips only)and the PCI card: does the card support raid? Does it have two cable connections? Do I have to partition any of the drives (at this moment I have no partitions)?
I am using Ulead VideoStudio 7 (had 5 and 6 to start) It is convenient, since it has everything: can capture in AVI as well in several compressed formats; edits with all I need; authors and burns VCD or DVD as well. And priced reasonably. Obviously there are better applications, but not only higher priced but it takes a while to learn them So I compromise, but still would like the get the best out of what I have.
Thanks again. Charles

 

[cdogg]

First, you might want to read up on RAID:

http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=quick_explanation_of_raid

http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2306/2306article6.htm

http://www.thejemreport.com/articles/raid.php

If you plan on having fault tolerance (parity), then you'll want to use an array of drives with equal capacity or partition sizes. That will give you the best overall performance without wasting space.

PCI IDE controller cards can either be single, dual-channel, or dual-channel with RAID (most expensive of the three). The links above should help you reach a decision on the one you need. RAID 0 can easily provide the best performance of all options available, but just be aware that if one drive fails, all data is lost.

~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle

 

[GOLDENCHILD]

A gigabyte per minute must be wrong - I use recording in AVI and that takes "only" around 14 GB per hour in 720X576 ....

There are more types of raid , for explanations check out these links :

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/concepts/gen_Striping.htm

http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-09-1995/swol-09-raid5.html

If a card you buys support raid depends on the card , right ??? , The one you will get with a harddisk probably won't support raid just ATA133 , You can get Raid Controllers from Highpoint , Promise , Adaptec and others
A raid card would in most cases have atleast 2 channels (I/O for two cables) .

If you have no partitions you have no place to put your data so trust me you got partitions.
For video editing and recording use Windows 2000 or windows XP and on your target drive(S) (for recording on) use NTFS file system.

One of the applications you get with Pinnacle Studio Deluxe 8 is called Pinnacle Studio 8 and this is very easy to use (try it together with their Hollywood FX for Studio).
(I know that they issued a demo CD for Studio 7 that will show you the use in pictures)

If you got what you need don't change on my account - I just think the Pinnacle Sys stuff is really nice. If you wants to change and don't want Pinnacle Sys then look for Canopus (I haven't tried them but they probably delivers nice equipment too)

Regards

 

[SYAR2003]

Could run 0+1 i suppose to overcome that,

That's what backups are for i guess (not to loose data).
Nothing is faultproof to a hundred percent no matter what you do.


But as cdogg says , excellent decriptions are
already on the net ,as the links provided.
So catch up on your reading.

syar

 

[GOLDENCHILD]

Well! , if you use Raid 0=striped you can loose all your data also if you got an onboard raid controller that fails and you do not know how to move (and configure) your raid drives to another controller , but as a cheap solution for Video recording and editing a 2 drive raid 0 solution is OK and economical .

I personally use an AMD XP 1600+ (1400MHZ) processor and an on-board ATA100 raid-controller configured with a 2 drive raid 0 configuration. I copy the data (final edited and coded video) from the Raid drives to another drive sometimes or to a CDR.

Regards

 

[charleshx]

Loosing data with RAID 0 striped for video editing is not a big issue, since I can always recapture them - either from the VHS tapes or the camcorder tapes. Broadcast is not my bag.

I decided to get the Maxtor 160 GB drive since it provides also the card, but I don't think it supports RAID so at this moment this is not a question.

Ulead Video Studio captures in AVI using Microsoft YUV "compression" resulting in a file of 1.23 GB/min - it is a 16 bit file which can not be edited and has to be rendereed using a DV video Encoder (of Ulead VS again) to a file of 24 bit which is 0.21 GB/min so it correlates closely to a 14 GB/hr AVI file of Goldenchild. But, anyhow, I have to capture the 16 bit file on my harddisc and it is close to 80 GB/hour as well as to store the 24 bit file of another 12.5 GB before I can start editing. So even the Maxtor 160 GB HD won't handle a full 2 hour clip.

When you ask me, "why"? Because I found that the best quality still was to capture AND edit in AVI (for example from VHS) then convert to MPEG and burn on VCD or DVD.

I found some good info on Raid on the Web, thanks also to your input. Thanks guys.

 

[ceh4702]

It takes longer to read and write to the hard drive than it does to transmit data from the hard drive to and from the CPU, or another drive.

You can not exceed the transfer capabilities with just one hard drive and one or two CDROM's.

For most people it makes no difference.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.